User talk:Toby Bartels/2004

Can i ask where you are planning to quote me? PMA 08:42, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC) I watched The Brady Bunch alot when Channel 10 repeated it in the late 80s and early 90s. I also am partial to other "corny" shows like Family Ties and Lizzie McGuire.

Family Ties is corny? I grew up on that show! (But Lizzie McGuire is after my time.) Anyway, I have no current plans to quote you -- but your quotation will likely be useful for several years, in fact quite possibly for the rest of my life. So I will attribute it to you. -- Toby Bartels 06:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're now a Meta administrator. :) Angela . 01:20, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hoorah, thanks! -- Toby Bartels 06:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Onsager

Hey, Toby, I developed the statement of the onsager reciprocal relations a little more, maybe now you can see why one needs statistical mechanics to prove them. And, DON'T assume flows are isentropic. -- Miguel Sat Feb 14 16:09:40 PST 2004

Great! -- Toby Bartels 00:42, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the del symbols aren't showing up in the latest edit. Miguel's version showed the del's but the newest symbols are showing up as rectangles. Ancheta Wis 00:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How is it now? -- Toby Bartels 01:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is the point of [[image:nabla.png|∇]] as opposed to using <math> environments? Both create an inline image anyway, but the nabla.png is off the baseline while the ∇ looks right. -- Miguel Sun Feb 15 07:27:54 PST 2004

There is no really good solution yet. The texvc (<math>) doesn't do spacing correctly when it puts things in HTML, although one can prevent that by placing "\!" at the end. The images are not as readable as HTML, or even HTML with PNGs, for text users (the ALT text is TeX, which is not always as legible as it could be for the uninitiated). But the HTML-with-PNGs idea is not fully worked out -- there are some PNGs (and some GIFs) uploaded, but as you noted, they're not all lined up properly. I mean to upload a complete set of properly lined PNGs, but this isn't done yet.

For now, I think that Onsager relations will be best off with texvc for the formulæ with "∇" and ordinary wiki markup otherwise.

-- Toby Bartels 19:41, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Toby, I realized that I was writing generalities about non-equilibrium thermodynamics in the Onsager relations article, so I went ahead and wrote a stub for thermo that makes most of Onsager redundant. We need some cleanup of Onsager and to dig up a proof. -- Miguel Wed Feb 18 15:54 GMT 2004

Libertarian Socialism

A clear concensus is required to remove an article from featured articles? Not simply a concensus to keep it? I have to say that sounds abominable, and is contrary to what I have heard, and what I have seen in practice. Sam Spade 02:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm writing comments on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates right now, so I'll see you there. ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 03:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Right on Sam Spade 03:16, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Toby, I'm not sure how often you are at the Pashto Wikipedia, so I thought I'd better point out that I answered your question at ps:Wikipedia:Protected page. Angela . 20:33, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied to your reply, but you don't really have to read it. -- Toby Bartels 21:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism

Would you please do Featured articles the justice of removing this article? I have requested this here, and I feel it would be best if you did the honors yourself. Sam Spade 01:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the signature system to me Toby. Kev 03:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem! -- Toby Bartels 18:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Injury

Toby, since Injury is a new article and you have restored the page history I have removed it from Wikipedia:speedy deletions. It is no longer a candidate for speedy deletion. - Texture 18:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's fine; I restored the listing because I was commenting on what I did and why. (You and I had an edit conflict.) I'm never sure how quickly such comments should be removed, but it's fine with me if you remove it now. -- Toby Bartels 18:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. If nothing else it is now in the page history in case anyone has questions. - Texture 18:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the page history; that's why I don't mind whatever you choose to do. ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 18:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unmapped places

I don't think it is necessary to do anything with User:Pfortuny/Unmapped places: I created my subpage, then someone created Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested and orphan maps and copypasted the contents of "my" page. Then I asked for my subpage to be deleted straightaway (which was done but I don't recall by whom). ... ? Probably its talk page (if it exists) ought to be deleted, but no more than that, I for my part am quite happy as it is. :) Thanks for taking the trouble, anyway. Pfortuny 20:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No trouble (and there was no talk page). I just wanted to make sure that you realised that there was an alternative. -- Toby Bartels 02:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nathaniel Hawthorne

I repeatedly asked the anonymous poster to please put WHY he/she was making the changes into the Talk pages, and the poster kept ignoring my request. Just deleting stuff without discussion, especially when the poster is an anonymous user, is vandalism, in my book. RickK | Talk 20:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Repeatedly? You made one comment on the user talk page, rather than on the article's own talk page. (You even removed Angela's welcome in doing so!) Then you just launched in with threats. This is hardly the way to settle an editing disagreement between two equally valid users. Finally, I don't give a damn what counts as vandalism in your book. Wikipedia has its own notions of vandalism, and as sysops, we are not authorised to block people for our own reasons. -- Toby Bartels 20:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

Thanks, Toby. I had been wondering if that could be done. Cheers, Bds_yahoo

Glad to help. Read more about redirects on Wikipedia:Redirect. -- Toby Bartels 20:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed your comment at ps:Wikipedia:Protected page saying you were going to ask to be a sysop there. If you still want this, please ask at m:requests for permissions. Angela . 23:04, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't get around to it anytime soon, so I won't imply that I will by asking for this. But when I have more free time, then I'll remember where to go. ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 18:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maori Wikipedia

Hello, Toby. Please confirm that you are the user of that name [1] on the above. I'd like all users to have at least a brief English reference on their user pages if nothing else. I'll write a short sentence and link to your English page (and Pashto if you like) if you don't want to bother. Kind regards, Robin Patterson 13:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've put up a sentence and a link to here. -- Toby Bartels 18:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that! I may occasionally call for interwiki help. (Interesting idiomatic or dialect difference in your self-edit - I never use the phrase "if you want".) All the best! - Robin Patterson 20:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, if you check the edit history, then you'll see that I originally wrote "if you like"; I regard the expressions as interchangeable. (Although interestingly, without the "if", the proper equivalent of "you want" is "you would like".) Would you only use "if you like", or would you use something else? Alternatively, is your point that you'd have said "if you want to"? -- Toby Bartels 23:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Toby, it was because I looked at your edit history that I saw your original "if you like" and idly wondered why you had bothered to change it. Nuance, I guess. The sort of thing we wordsmiths can waste heaps of time on. Sorry! -) I sometimes say "if you want to"; but "if you want." is uncommon in New Zealand. Keep up the good work! Robin Patterson 11:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What have I done??

Go to the User Contributions page to find out all edits I have made to Wikipedia. Rate me as Excellent, Fine, Very Good, Good, or Fair based on what kind of edits they have been. Excellent means all of them were good, while Fair means none of them were good. 66.245.11.49 00:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If none of them were good, then surely that's not Fair, is it? Or do we reserve Bad for edits in bad faith, like vandalism and intentional POV? (Since you ask me to look at your edits, this is surely not the case.) No matter; I'll take a look. -- Toby Bartels 00:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Seems hard to get past spam-blocking, to reply. Charles Matthews 10:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. I did reply to your email; do you mean that you know that I replied, but your spam blocker deleted the reply before you read it? If so, then I'll send my reply again; let me know if I should do anything differently to avoid your spam blocker. I don't use any spam blocking on my incoming email, so you should have no trouble mailing me. -- Toby Bartels 19:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My email address

It sounds dodgy to me. If someone wants to contact me, why didn't they leave a note on my talk page? This could be legit, I have dealt with a few highschool kids doing at bit of mucking about and light vandalism. But it could also be one of the kids themselves mailbomb at the ready. Don't give my address to anyone please. theresa knott 21:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Request for AMA assistance

We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — © Alex756 03:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meta Changes

Since you are not an Anglican according to your own statement I wonder if you are best qualified to keep changing Anglicans into "Protestants"! Please see the conversation on Talk:Catholicism. --BozMo |talk 19:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whether I am an Anglican is irrelevant. But I'm happy to converse with you: m:Talk:List of Wikipedians by religion. Indeed, I suspect that you will be pleased by my latest comments! -- Toby Bartels 19:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paris, Texas -- desert?

By a circuitous route, I ended up at Paris, Texas (movie). There I found a rather odd phrase in the description that you wrote a long time ago, "the desert near the Texas town of Paris." Having never seen the movie, but being familiar with the area, I'm a bit confused. What desert? Paris, Texas is hundreds of miles from any desert. It's not even dry there. Is your description wrong, or is it the movie misrepresenting the geography? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I no longer know what I was thinking!

Since I moved the material from Paris, Texas, I wanted to supply context, and I suspect that I wanted to write "The movie takes place in the Texas town of Paris.". But the simplest research shows that this is false! The IMDb article (where I expect that I would have gone for research) is vague on the setting, and I don't believe that I would have written what I did based only on that source. OTOH, I can't think of any other source, so I don't know anymore what I did base it on. So, I'll edit the text to only what I can be sure of now, hoping that somebody that has actually seen the movie will come along later and write a good article! ^_^

-- Toby Bartels 19:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay then. I just wanted to prevent further spread of the misconception that Texas is largely desert :) -- Cyrius|✎ 20:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, once I saw Lamar County on the map, I knew that this wasn't the part of Texas where the desert is. ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 20:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Toby,

Did you start to Queer Wikipedians Community ?

Dlloyd 04:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what your question means. You already seem to know about Meta:Queer Wikipedians; I didn't start that page but I often edit it for style. -- Toby Bartels 03:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you that the pride flag disappeared from the page, but it's back now. Cheers. Dlloyd 08:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your account in the Nauruan Wiktionary

Hi Toby, I just wondered you created an account in the Nauruan Wiktionary (http://na.wiktionary.org/). Do you speak Nauruan language? Are you going to write some articles there? Greets -- CdaMVvWgS 06:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I was just creating accounts on all of the wikis. If you are working on it (but you are Swiss, aren't you?), then I wish you success, but I don't know a single thing about the language! That said, I will help you if there's anything that you need to get started ... although I can't think of anything offhand. -- Toby Bartels 07:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My and Leslie's

In the article Solecism, you imply that the usage "my and Leslie's..." is correct. Is it? It sounds odd, but my English teacher can't find a better phrasing than "...of Leslie and me". --Geoffrey 02:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this usages places both "I" and "Leslie" in the possessive case as "my" and "Leslie's". Similar usage is "my and his" (the example before I changed it) and "Bobby's and Leslie's", both of which sound nicer to the ear (I think) -- that's why "my and Leslie's" is more likely IMO to be replaced with a solecism. But they are all correctly declined. Other solecisms used here are "mine and Leslie's" -- which is correct when used as a substantive ("This house is mine and Leslie's.") -- and "Bobby and Leslie's" -- arguably best in an informal context where Bobby and Leslie are treated more as a fixed couple than as individuals ("Bobby-and-Leslie", "Bobby-and-Leslie's"). -- Toby Bartels 06:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Public Domain

On your user page you seem to place your contributions into the public domain. If this is the case, could you add the template {{MultiLicensePD}} to your user page so we can keep track of those users who do this? -- Ram-Man 02:12, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

No, I retain copyright to all my work, but I do not reserve any legal rights. You have permission to do anything with it, but it is not in the public domain. Imagine a CC-[no conditions, not even "by"] licence 1.0; it's like that. I will clarify the language on my user page some. -- Toby Bartels 21:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you would consent to also release your changes under the CC-by-sa license? (Template: {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}) That should be compatible with your statement that we can do what we want with it while you retain the copyright, yes? We'd like to be able to use articles (such as the rambot city articles) as not only GFDL but under the creative commons terms too (for projects like WikiTravel to use). -- Ram-Man 00:49, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

My objection to {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} is that it's rather deceptive to put that specific tag. See, my work is released under any licence whatsoever! That's because it's released under the "Everything is permissible" licence -- the simplest and shortest free licence in the world, compatible (in one direction) with every other licence. I suppose that one way out is to put every tag. Do you think that this would work? -- Toby Bartels 02:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. The main thing is 1) that I fully understand your licensing terms (which I do now) and 2) that we want to add the category so we can keep track of those users who let us use that license. And it wouldn't suggest that you ONLY use those licenses, just allow us to list you a user who allows that specific one. Would this be acceptable? The ones currently available are:

The tag {{MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any}} would automatically add the above 3 categories, but would also add a banner. I haven't made a tag or category yet for EVERY Creative Commons license, but I will in the future (for what its worth). -- Ram-Man 02:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

There's more stuff on my user page now, including the sense in which the banners and categories may apply. So as you create banners and categories for other licences, then you may add them to my user page too. (PD is not a licence; and ultimately, that's the only reason that it can't be added too.) -- Toby Bartels 06:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)